When you pursue your noble goals under the banner of feminism, even when you prefix it, and say liberal feminism, or humanist feminism, or sex positive feminism, you are giving cover to those who openly call for the extermination of men.

And that’s why I don’t care what flavor of feminism you practice. You’re using the same brand name as murderous, eugenics enthusiast, destroy due process sexual apartheid gender ideologue elitists for whom violence isn’t just an unpleasant option. Violence, when contemplated against children, or men, especially when doled out by state functionaries is what gets them wet. That’s the big, funded, organized and politically established collective with which you identify by name.

Wait…there’s a big, funded, organized and politically established collective of feminists who have the goal of murdering men and carrying out violence against children? I know a lot of feminists, but none of them are particularly well-funded for that activity, and none of them are getting paid to exterminate men. I know there are a few extremists out there, but the liberal feminists, and humanist feminists, and sex positive feminists are more the mainstream. Much more the mainstream. And the primary feminist sources are not making excuses for man-murder.

But that’s the Manosphere for you — completely disconnected from reality.

Here, rinse that unpleasant taste out of your mouth with a video of one of those real aggressive, assertive feminists.

I do remember, Susan B. Anthony, with her dark shades hiding her glowing red mechanical eye, telling President Mckinley, “I’ll be back.” And then her returning and killing the president. It’s true. Feminist have always been killers.

I know that was pure snark. I know the people who complain about the FreeThoughtBullies already say that shit about PZ. But I am still waiting for some of them to take this as PZ admitting that he engages in this behavior.

On second thought, the way they think and how they act will not be change. Might as well have a laugh.

Oh, man, Avicenna — didn’t you know you have to clear everything with me before posting? That’s where Thuderf00t screwed the pooch, you know.

A certain forum is going to light up like Christmas over that one. Still, I’m with Janine; when even the slightest possible slip-up is held against against you, the best solution is to ignore that and let it mock itself.

More on topic, I’m not surprised this was posted on A Voice For Men. Elam has compared dating to “negotiation with a hooker,” and helped promote a petition to change the name of Vancouver to “Mancouver.” When their posters get torn down, they switch to stickers.

Imagine Timecube guy hired a decent editorial and graphic design team, then switched to gender studies, and you wouldn’t be far off the mark.

Well I did see a blog (via Fundies Say the Darndest Things) that advocated an end to the male gender. It had about 6 Facebook fans, so you can clearly see the massive groundswell of support such a view has.

It strikes me that the structure of his argument is very similar to one espoused by certain atheists when criticizing religious moderates: by participating in religion AT ALL, even in a moderate way, they give cover to the zealots who engage in truly abhorrent extreme behavior. I think I’ve heard some form of that argument stated on this blog. In what way is the argument against religious moderates different from the argument (and I realize I’m being extremely generous in calling it an argument, but go with me on this) against feminism? Is it that the harms claimed against feminism are trumped up, while those claimed against religion are real? Or could it rather be that this type of argument, using the sins of an extreme minority to criticize a relatively benign majority, is itself fallacious?

Let’s call this argument X: the extremists among group Y are bad, therefore even moderates among group Y are bad. Now imagine turning argument X on itself. Extremists who misuse argument X in an attempt to demonize a group are raving lunatics, therefore even moderates who try to invoke argument X in a much more reasonable context ought to employ better rhetoric.

This “John the Other” guy sounds kind of nutty alright.
It says something though that when shown together with the feminists during the “Great Poster Tear Down” fiasco he actually came out looking like the sane one.

It strikes me that the structure of his argument is very similar to one espoused by certain atheists when criticizing religious moderates: by participating in religion AT ALL, even in a moderate way, they give cover to the zealots who engage in truly abhorrent extreme behavior.

One is an actual argument with merit, the other is frothing at the mouth. Even the most moderate theist supports religious structure and the inclusion of religion in government, schooling, etc.

When it comes to AVFM and other assorted mras, there’s no basis to their “argument”. There is no politically sanctioned, gigantic movement to punish and eliminate men and children, while the evil women laugh in insane delight within their orgasmatrons.

Speaking as a RadBot Ancient Exterminalienist, I find it troubling that the mainstream scientific community does not take this threat seriously. Good people have been asking honest questions about the coming Testopocalypse.

Maffoo, that only way that argument is even close to legitimate is if the concepts and practice of feminism were as widespread as religion.

Yeah, that’s hurdle the first. Hurdle the second would be for extremist feminists to be as bad as extremist religious people which, let me take a moment to give this the proper seriousness it deserves…

how could anyone even think for a moment that there would be any group that advocates for the destruction of the human species and not be considered in need of professional care?
Does anyone anywhere really advocate for the destruction of all males and children? or did the gentlemen in question let his tinfoil hat slip?
uncle frogy

Mafoo: “It strikes me that the structure of his argument is very similar to one espoused by certain atheists when criticizing religious moderates: by participating in religion AT ALL, even in a moderate way, they give cover to the zealots who engage in truly abhorrent extreme behavior.”

My, what a lovely straw man. No, Mafoo. The argument against “moderate” religiosity is not that it gives cover to extremists.
Rather, it is because there are not degrees of self delusion. Would you seriously argue that it is OK to believe in the absurd if it is only a little absurd? As Voltaire said, “If they can make you believe absurdities, they can make you commit atrocities.” It is not my experience that there is such a thing as a “moderate atrocity.”

2) The label of “feminism” is quite controversial and doesn’t enjoy the kind of widespread approval that “religion” does among the general public. Feminism certainly doesn’t enjoy the near-immunity from criticism that religion does; declaring oneself a non-feminist doesn’t get you automatically get you labelled militant, strident, etc. Feminists defend feminism because they believe it is correct; rarely (if ever) have I seen a feminist declare that feminism simply CANNOT be criticized because it is too personal or sacred to be subjected to analysis.

After all, when you claim to support “Democracy”, you’re gladly sharing the totalitarian ideals of the former “German Democratic Republic.” Worse, that “Republican” name, and the “Democratic” too, is haunted, what with the “People’s Republic of China” under Mao and the “Democratic People’s Republic” that is North Korea.

It’s possible JohnTheOther is making a reference to Valerie Solanas. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valerie_Solanas I doubt a significant number of current feminists have even heard of her, let alone consider her an influence in any way.

Anti-feminists love to bring up Solanas as the archetypal feminist (or the archetypal radical feminist), and make a lot about the language in SCUM Manifesto and her shooting of Warhol.

They conveniently ignore that:
1. SCUM Manifesto is pretty obviously parody.
2. Solanas shot Warhol because of a personal falling-out, not because he was a man (or because she hated all men).
3. Solanas had a stack of other issues.
and
4. Solanas’ actual views on various feminist (and radfem) matters were either (1) quite mainstream and reasonable or (2) very fringe-y even by fringe standards.

In all my time in the (actual) radfem stomping grounds, I have yet to meet another radical feminist who disagreed with what I just said or who held Solanas up as a radfem hero or viewed SCUM Manifesto as anything other than a parody.

I have been a feminist for more than 40 years now and in that time I have struggled NOT to hate men. It hasn’t been easy because there are a lot of stupid and/or hateful males out there. Yes, I know not ALL men are jerks but honest to FSM, this man is so awful he makes me wish there were a secret cabal to exterminate men — starting with him.

you are giving cover to those who openly call for the extermination of men.

I got that far and stopped reading. It wasn’t even a conscious decision, my brain simply stopped taking in the words at that point.

How does anyone get far enough into this shit to form a cogent opinion on it? More to the point, WHY does anyone get far enough into this shit to form a cogent opinion on it? Is the ridiculousness of this shit not laid bare enough by all this gibberish about gendercide against men? I suppose not, since JohnTheNutter is considered some sort of “leading light” by MRAs. Quite what entitles him to such esteem, aside from his ability to fan the sad, lonely flames of smouldering gender-hatred with each nonsensical outburst, is beyond me.

I suppose being able to reinforce the ityy-bitty persecution complexes of fellow Men’s Rights Sadacts with prurient vitriol about the evils of bitches-who-won’t-validate-my-sense-of-entitlement-oh-wait-no-I-mean-feminists is enough to warrant such praise from imbeciles whose entire reality seems tidally locked with the notion of “man” being the alpha and the omega of any species incapable of asexual reproduction. Thing is, where they see Polaris guiding the caravan to Bethlehem, I instead see a kind of sulphurous beige ignis fatuus, whose billowing, gaseous issuances tempt the dull and the unwary toward a noxious mire of delusion, from whence the only escape is to slowly disappear deeper beneath a feculent swell of crusty socks and congealed microwave meals for one.

Either that, or wake up, grow up, open your eyes, and realise that the reality of people like JohnTheOther resembles the physical reality of our universe in no way whatsoever.

Do we have to get rid of all of them? Couldn’t I keep, say, James Marsters, Adam Baldwin and Tahmoh Penikett quietly in the basement? They wouldn’t bother anyone and I would totally feed them and take them for walks every day.

It strikes me that the structure of his argument is very similar to one espoused by certain atheists when criticizing religious moderates:

The structure is similar, yes.
The content, however, is substantially different.

Kind of in the same way that the structure of an oxygen tank and an acetylene tank are similar, but their contents are different. Confusing the contents based on the structure of the containers is a bad idea (if you’re welding) or a worse idea (if you’re SCUBA diving).

…by participating in religion AT ALL, even in a moderate way, they give cover to the zealots who engage in truly abhorrent extreme behavior. I think I’ve heard some form of that argument stated on this blog. In what way is the argument against religious moderates different from the argument (and I realize I’m being extremely generous in calling it an argument, but go with me on this) against feminism?

Well, a brief overview of the number of religious wars fought versus the number of feminist wars fought might give a faint inkling as to one major difference.

Is it that the harms claimed against feminism are trumped up, while those claimed against religion are real?

That’s certainly a lot of it.
Why do you ask? Do you disagree with the notion that fanatical fundamentalist religion has caused a hell of a lot more harm than even the most radical feminism?

Here’s another reason – the thing that religious people, both fanatical and moderate, believe should guide their lives is a delusion. Do you think that what moderate feminists believe (that is, that women are worthwhile beings in their own right) is a delusion?
Is that an important distinction between the two groups, in your mind?

Or could it rather be that this type of argument, using the sins of an extreme minority to criticize a relatively benign majority, is itself fallacious?

It would be, if that’s what was happening during criticism of moderate religion. When a religious fanatic kills someone for faith-based reasons, the moderates of his shard religion are not to blame for the killing. But they are to blame if they fail to understand and articulate that the crime is not mitigated by being faith-based.
To be more specific: mainstream Catholics are not themselves directly to blame for and child-molestations performed by the priests of their church. But they are to blame for supporting, and providing money for, and cover for, and comfort for, and excuses for, those criminals. They’re not guilty of rape, they are guilty of aiding and abetting rape.

Let’s call this argument X: the extremists among group Y are bad, therefore even moderates among group Y are bad. Now imagine turning argument X on itself. Extremists who misuse argument X in an attempt to demonize a group are raving lunatics, therefore even moderates who try to invoke argument X in a much more reasonable context ought to employ better rhetoric.

The argument against “moderate” religiosity is not that it gives cover to extremists

Well, it can. However, it’s not simply because they’re both part of the same overall group. Rather, it’s because the moderates and the extremists are founded in the same irrational belief system.
This means that the moderates cannot effectively critique the extremists without undermining their own position as well.

Once you’ve accepted the idea (as the moderate religious groups have) that it’s ok to believe things for which there is absolutely no evidence, simply because you prefer to believe them, you can’t credibly criticize others just because they’ve picked something else to believe.
The only difference between religious moderates and extremists is that they’ve picked different things to irrationally believe. Their basic approach to the world is the same.

However, the “women deserve to be treated like human beings” feminism and the “let’s kill all men” feminism are founded in fundamentally different ideas. One of them can be rationally defended and the other one can’t. One of them is consistent with universal human rights and the other isn’t. One of them accepts gender equality and the other one doesn’t.
In religion, moderates and extremists start from the same point. With feminism, this simply isn’t true.

According to Talisma Nasrim, of this place, men hate every aspect of a woman:

What’s it say about you that you confused a woman’s body for ‘every aspect of a woman’? Oh right, that you’re a fool misogynist.

Look, fool, the fact is that the policing of women’s bodies is real. Taslima even specified that women do it as well (And it is indeed true we learn it from patriarchy; how could we not?). That you confused “Stop policing women’s bodies” with “the demonization of men” speaks even more volumes about you, and none of it is good.

In point of fact, it never will be good. Because men aren’t oppressed for being men, and your little persecution complex, while cute, is just that; a complex. Flutter away, little sparrow, for people who aren’t busy will show up to curbstomp you further for cheapening real oppression by comparing your bullshit to it.

Greg Laden, also of this place, says that men are brain-damaged by testosterone.

Laden doesn’t blog here, but I notice your lack of citation just the same.

So the “feminism” of this place is essentially identical to that of RadFem hub.

So the “feminism” of this place is essentially identical to that of RadFem hub. Men are sub-humans, consumed by hatred of women, every one of them rapist-in-waiting, and mentally impaired.

Well, my feminism holds that women are worthwhile humans and as such are deserving of the same rights as all humans, without regards to gender.

I do not believe men are sub-humans, if only for the simple reason that they are humans.

I do not believe every man is a rapist. I believe a disturbing number are potential rapists, and a smaller but still disturbing number are actually rapists. I believe there are men who have raped but do not consider what they did to be rape. And there are men (and occasionally women) that agree with them.

I believe some men, and some women, are mentally impaired. That’s a totally separate issue from being men and women, of course.

Greg Laden, also of this place, says that men are brain-damaged by testosterone.

I found the lack of condemnation of this comment pretty disturbing as well. If you’re going to claim to fight prejudice, why don’t you fight all forms of prejudice, instead of fighting it with the left hand and wielding it with the right.

I found the lack of condemnation of this comment [Laden’s] pretty disturbing as well

There’s a very good reason for the lack of condemnation. If you so much as question the demonizing and dehumanizing of men then you are labeled a misogynist, and a MRA, and then you banned, and once you can no longer respond then you are further slandered.

The power and perversion of cooties is legendary. See a pretty girl and you’re magnetically-attracted to her, forced, forced, to tear her clothes off and satisfy her every wish. Cooties have been long known to be the cause, but just how do they exert such control?

Aristotle once observed the penis seems to have a mind of its own. Once it desires someone it’s hard to keep it out of the vagina. Mythmen over the millennia have tried many things to keep themselves superior to the wimmin, requiring them to wear tents, walk behind the men, stay virginal, marry young, et al. To little effect. The cooties are more powerful.

For a long time how cooties overwhelmed the elaborate defenses of males was a complete mystery. The first hypothesis to gain any traction was surprisingly recent, proposed after the discovery of X-Rays. C-Rays. Cootie-Rays, emitted by the vagina and working like a Star Trek tractor beam, capturing a man, pulling him closer and the penis inside.

But like the æther, C-Rays had strange properties. They can’t be detected. They aren’t blocked by anything: Not clothes, not walls, not isolation in a deep cave. And they are emitted by pictures and paintings of females (clothed or not).

Rays of Cooties fell into disfavor, leaving the puzzle of how cooties actually work.

Then an unknown genius realized it was all backwards. Cooties aren’t emitting rays. They are drawing, sucking, males to doom and destruction in the vagina. This inversion of the old hypothesis was whimsically named Ray-Cs.

Since there are no actual rays, there’s nothing to detect, nothing which can be shielded against. A photograph or skilled painter can accurately reproduce the effect of cooties.

The pronunciation of “Ray-Cs” quickly mutated. Ray-Cees quickly became Rape Me, later abbreviated as Yes! and pronounced the same as “No”.

So when a girl says No the male knows he is doomed, captured, and obligated to rip off her clothes and insert his penis into her all-conqueroring vagina. He is completely under the control of the cooties.

Not all men want to be driven like mindless robots. The CRA — Cootie Resistance Army — was one result, famous as the soopersecret Illuminati-like manipulators who ensured the downfall of the ERA (Equal Rights Amendment). After a schism, one splinter group has become prominent, the MRAs: Magical Rape Apostles, who preach against the power of cooties.

Greg Laden, also of this place, says that men are brain-damaged by testosterone.

Not actually true (as to be expected).
Greg’s line was that testosterone damages the developing female brain* of the fetus to turn it into a male brain.
That was not “elegantly put” and yes, provocatively put*, put in a typical Greg Laden way, but for everybody who actually watched the video and followed the discussion (on FTB, what’s more!) on this and this particular sentence knows that “Greg Laden says that man are brain-damaged” is just another lie.

*I know it pains some guys immensely to know that the female is the default and without the interference of testosterone fetuses will develop into women**

**Mostly CAIS (complete androgen insensitivity syndrome) is fascinating and gives insights into which processes are really regulated by androgens and which are regulated otherwise.

There’s a very good reason for the lack of condemnation. If you so much as question the demonizing and dehumanizing of men then you are labeled a misogynist, and a MRA, and then you banned, and once you can no longer respond then you are further slandered.

It’s not exactly an environment conducive to communication.

Especially not conducive when you burst in and bust out a narrative that fits your preconception without anything historically accurate to back you up. Coming soon from kevinsolway: a post predicting their imminent demise for something as innocuous as speaking their mind.

There’s a very good reason for the lack of condemnation. If you so much as question the demonizing and dehumanizing of men then you are labeled a misogynist, and a MRA, and then you banned, and once you can no longer respond then you are further slandered.

Um, ok, I would have to say that Greg’s comment (I wasn’t aware of it before, but other folks appear to be verifying that it was made more-or-less as presented) was somewhere between needlessly provocative and downright silly.
He shouldn’t do things like that unless he can back it up, which I suspect would be difficult at best. What justification, if any, was given for using the term ‘damages’ rather than just ‘changes’ or ‘alters’? Did he site any loss of function or suchlike? If not, it’s bullshit.

Now, with that out of the way…

It’s not exactly an environment conducive to communication.

Ok, communicate away!
One nice thing about having an argument over the internet is you can always do what Linus did with The Brothers Karamazov: ‘bleep over’ the hard bits.

So, hit us with your best shot – demonstrate (citations, please!) how men are marginalized in western society, wielding less economic and political power than women. Presumably you can do this be listing the overwhelming majority of women holding high office and heading corporations. A demonstration of the male minority in prestigious and/or high-paying jobs would be a good second step. And as a final course, a quick overview of the women-positive aspect of every major western religion, just in case we miss the earlier two points.

That actually raised my parody cockles. Mostly because the first entry on the top left is “WE ARE NOT ASSOCIATED WITH MENS RIGHTS ADVOCATES”. That is a weird first entry to meake.

There is lots of speculation that the blogger is a parody. Though she probably doesn’t know what the word ‘Poe’ means, she is self-aware enough to claim she isn’t. The mraverse has been all agog over her for the last month.

By JohnTheOther’s “logic,” advocating for the extermination of men seems like a perfectly sensible thing to do.

After all, if any man anywhere in the history of ever has ever engaged in any form of violence in the name of men or masculinity or while presenting as a man–which we know has happened; the Montreal Massacre dude comes to mind–then anyone identifying as a man is operating under TEH SAME BRAND NAME!!1!11!1!! as men who kill people. Ergo, being even a “nice” or “moderate” or “humanist” or “not a murderer” man is UNACCEPTABLE and you should knock it off immediately.

I found the lack of condemnation of this comment pretty disturbing as well. If you’re going to claim to fight prejudice, why don’t you fight all forms of prejudice, instead of fighting it with the left hand and wielding it with the right.

What a delicate little flower you are. Is Greg Laden’s “prejudice” against you really affecting your life? Or are you maybe straining really hard to figure out something to whine about because you’re not the least bit oppressed? Seems like the latter to me.

There’s a very good reason for the lack of condemnation. If you so much as question the demonizing and dehumanizing of men then you are labeled a misogynist, and a MRA, and then you banned, and once you can no longer respond then you are further slandered.

Interesting you should bring up the “dehumanizing” of men. A friend of mine is a waitress and was just telling me about a customer who, after getting drunk, thrusted his pelvis at her and told her he wanted to kill her. When was the last time you experienced something as dehumanizing as that? Please describe the situation. Because oppression and “dehumanizing” of men is such a serious issue I’m sure you have a great many stories like that.

So far the worst examples of “demonizing and dehumanizing” men you idiots could come up with was Greg Laden saying something stupid and a disgusting misrepresentation of something Taslima Nasrim said on her blog. If that’s the stuff that’s so bad that you absolutely have to not only complain about it but describe it as “demonizing and dehumanizing” men then I gotta say — sounds like you guys lead some very nice, sheltered lives where you’re not really subject to much in the way of “demonizing and dehumanizing”.

There’s a very good reason for the lack of condemnation. If you so much as question the demonizing and dehumanizing of men then you are labeled a misogynist, and a MRA, and then you banned, and once you can no longer respond then you are further slandered.

It’s not exactly an environment conducive to communication. Many people were unaware that Greg said that.

sounds like you guys lead some very nice, sheltered lives where you’re not really subject to much in the way of “demonizing and dehumanizing”.

They’re just sniveling little cowards, like all mras. They’re complaining about non-existant misandry because pretending to be a victim is easier than being an adult. Its like they’re bursting into the NICU screaming how dare those nurses pay attention to newborns when they HAVE A HANGNAIL!!!!

I’m a radical feminist too. JtO is just some crazy from my town. I wish he didn’t live here but he does. I did get to see the posters around town about the fact that the MRM is a hate group. They are a hate group. They’re pubescent fascination with genitals is creepy. They’re not clever.

Oh and Solway is a lunatic misogynist as well.

Don’t they have Girlwriteswhat paypal to fatten up instead of being here posting stupid shit?

For my part, that would be because I have zero respect for Laden and anything he has to say. He also isn’t a part of FTB, which was part of Kevin’s claim.

Neither have I, but I’m sick and tired of the “let’s just all punch Greg Laden” shit.
First of all he he gets missrepresented just as much as Rebecca or PZ (but just like PZ the power over him is significantly lower, of course), just look at the “he said men are brain-damaged” spin this took already. That’s not OK. If you want to criticise Laden, just criticise what he actually said and did, there’s no shortage of material there.
Secondly they attack him still as part of the larger “us”, because if though he isn’t on FtB, he still is part of that larger “us”. And they know how little people are interested in defneding him here so he becomes an easy target.
I’m a bit at loss at how to express this. He’s kind of the “abortion scenario where pro-choicers will agree with pro lifers”: Find a feminists who is just so horrible that other feminists hate him to discredit feminism. Greg Laden’s assholery has everything to do with him being an asshole and not with him being a feminist. What he says still stands and falls on its own merrit.

Lachlan, cupcake, tell me, how much of a normally functioning female brain do men have?

Of what relevance is this question?

daniellavine:

What a delicate little flower you are. Is Greg Laden’s “prejudice” against you really affecting your life? Or are you maybe straining really hard to figure out something to whine about because you’re not the least bit oppressed? Seems like the latter to me.

I’m not particularly hurt by Laden’s comment, nor the sexist comments of others around here, that’s not why I respond. I respond because I believe that fighting prejudice requires fighting it in all its forms, even when it’s applied to groups perceived as strong or successful.

It is of relevance whether, from a biological viewpoint, a developing female brain was damaged in order to create a male one.
Since men’s brains started out as female-default ones the normal function and development of those were damaged in order to create a normally functioning male one. If you’re too stupid to understand that what Laden made was a biological argument, not a moral one it may be that you ended up without a fuctioning version of either.

You still haven’t told me what the relevance of your question is. You merely state “it is of relevance”. Sounds to me like you’re excited by the idea of male brains being damaged female brains, making you rather sexist.

I’m also rather amused by the common and continual use of the word “cupcake”, meant to belittle, by people who so strongly despise being belittled. You probably assume that I am unhurt, and you’re right, but that doesn’t excuse your hypocrisy. :)

You still haven’t told me what the relevance of your question is. You merely state “it is of relevance”. Sounds to me like you’re excited by the idea of male brains being damaged female brains, making you rather sexist.

No fuckwit. You are being a twit by either not refuting the statement with solid third party evidence, or not acknowledging you are brain-damaged, which explains your sexism. What you MRA types always lack is real evidence. All you have is imagufactured pseudo evidence. Try really thinking your ideas through. But then, that requires a working brain.

No fuckwit. You are being a twit by either not refuting the statement with solid third party evidence, or not acknowledging you are brain-damaged, which explains your sexism. What you MRA types always lack is real evidence. All you have is imagufactured pseudo evidence. Try really thinking your ideas through. But then, that requires a working brain.

Here, you seem not to understand. Let me help you out a bit. If you hope to live in a world where people are judged on their individual merits, and not the groups to which they belong, then describing the male brain as a damaged female brain, true or otherwise, is not a stone on the path to achieving it.

Sounds to me like you’re excited by the idea of male brains being damaged female brains, making you rather sexist.

Yes, Lachlan. The male brain is a damaged female brain the same way a sadwich is a damaged bread. Hell you’re dense. If you had understood the comment and the discussion about the remark you would have understood that the argument is not a moral one or one of value.
You and I both started with a healthy developing female brain when we were itsy bitsy teeny tiny fetuses. then in your case testosterone kicked in. It stopped the female brain from going on in its development, and instead took what it found to make a healthy male one. That female brain is no more. A male one developed there instead. And the we were both born, but unlike you apparently, I was caught by the midwife.

Here, you seem not to understand. Let me help you out a bit. If you hope to live in a world where people are judged on their individual merits, and not the groups to which they belong, then describing the male brain as a damaged female brain, true or otherwise, is not a stone on the path to achieving it.

The male brain is a damaged female brain the same way a sadwich is a damaged bread.

Really? Becoming a sandwich has impaired the function and decreased the worth of the bread? A very stupid analogy that highlights the stupidity of your interpretation.

Allow me again to provide you with a definition of “damage”:

dam·age – Physical harm caused to something in such a way as to impair its value, usefulness, or normal function.

Even if we take your dishonest interpretation of Laden’s comment as correct, I ask again, what is the point of it? To state an obvious truism? The point of his comment is clear, and your interpretation is laughable.

Sexism is sexism, and you’re making excuses for it. Embarrassingly transparent excuses, but excuses none the less.

It is possible that yet another unique quality of man is a capacity for genuine, desinterested, true altruism. I hope so, but I am not going to argue the case one way or another, nor to speculate over its possible memic evolution. The point I am making now is that, even if we look on the dark side and assume that individual man is fundamentally selfish, our conscious foresight — our capacity to simulate the future in imagination — could save us from the worst selfish excesses of the blind replicators. We have at least the mental equipment to foster our long-term selfish interests rather than merely our short-term selfish interests. We can see the long-term benefits of participating in a `conspiracy of doves’, and we can sit down together to discuss ways of making the conspiracy work. We have the power to defy the selfish genes of our birth and, if necessary, the selfish memes of our indoctrination. We can even discuss ways of deliberately cultivating and nurturing pure, disinterested altruism — something that has no place in nature, something that has never existed before in the whole history of the world. We are built as gene machines and cultured as meme machines, but we have the power to turn against our own creators. We, alone on earth, can rebel against the tyranny of the selfish replicators.

Here, you seem not to understand. Let me help you out a bit. If you hope to live in a world where people are judged on their individual merits, and not the groups to which they belong, then describing the male brain as a damaged female brain, true or otherwise, is not a stone on the path to achieving it.

Ah, but until there is perfect equality under rule of law, there won’t be perfect equality due to latent/institution sexism. Just look at the “colorblind” companies. Lily white for the most part. Yes, they ignore the problems, so they can discriminate

Really? Becoming a sandwich has impaired the function and decreased the worth of the bread? A very stupid analogy that highlights the stupidity of your interpretation.

Allow me again to provide you with a definition of “damage”:

dam·age – Physical harm caused to something in such a way as to impair its value, usefulness, or normal function.

Oh my god, you really are stupid.
The analogy isn’t stupid because it exactly illustrates the thing you don’t understand. In order to make a sandwich I have to damage the loaf of bread. Do you understand that so far? And then I make a sandwich. Not for you, mind you. The analogy breaks down at the pint at which a sandwich is, of course, much more different from a loaf of bread than a male brain is from a female bread, but that’s beside the point. Now, you argue correctly, that doesn’t say the sandwich is worth less than the loaf, or worse than a loaf. Congratulations, you actually understod the argument!
Let me get back to the definition of damage you quoted (important highlight mine), my reply and the sandwich.
My question, which you still haven’t understood was:

how much of a normally functioning female brain do men have?

Which brings us to your fundamental misrepresentation of the argument (not my dishonest one, because it isn’t): Men are brain-damaged. Which is not what was being said. The argument mad was that in order to make a male brain (sandwich), you take a female one (loaf of bread) and damage it with testosterone (cut it with a knife). The argument made is one about process, not one about value of outcome.

I think the use of the term “damage” is needlessly contentious. “Damage” usually has the connotation of reduced function, not merely altered function, especially in the term “brain damage”.

However, I have to also say that I have some respect for Laden’s attitude and reason for picking such a loaded term:

it was not meant to be a description of the biological and cultural processes associated with the development of individual personality, culture, and society. I am a little surprised that people thought it was such a statement, because it is so obviously a remark designed to poke certain men in the eye. Some have described this remark as punching up. If you like, it could be interpreted that way, but it was really much much simpler than that. It was poking certain men in the eye. Some people said it was wrong because it was bad pedagogy. Actually, a statement like this can be good pedagogy. But what I was really doing was poking certain men in the eye.

For all those who are ignorant of the fact that Feminism, in all its many flavours, has had (and may still have) a very real connection with Eugenic ideals, please take the time to read the following article:

Ziegler’s CV: http://www.slu.edu/colleges/law/slulaw/sites/default/files/mziegle6_0.pdf
The article: http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlg/vol311/211-236.pdf
“…there was nothing contradictory or distinctive about feminist support for eugenics. Feminists are portrayed as having signed onto a pre-existing legal reform agenda. These accounts, however, fail to explain why feminist articulations of eugenics were significantly different from the explanations of eugenic law and science offered by eugenicists themselves. In fact, the writings of feminists involved in the eugenics reform movement show that they did not defer to traditional eugenic science, but redefined it. In doing so, these feminists created a unique theory that this article will call ‘eugenic feminism.'”

TL;DR –
1) Historically, Feminism has been linked to Eugenics
2) You have to ask yourself if extreme forms of Feminism and more “moderate” forms of Feminism differ in terms of ideology or if they only differ in the political correctness, decency, and sanity of the adherents.